And there will be a lot off individual balance changes needed over the course of the game, since players will gravitate to the weapon with the best recoil/damage ratio. If you had a problem with the slight stat advantage of the M16 in BF3, this might be worse. Also what about stances and player movement? Will that affect recoil in any way? If yes, this would lead to inconsistent results, if not then everybody will gravitate to a run&gun playstyle. The different roles of the weapons are also harder to balance this way, if you only have recoil and damage to balance around, what to do with SMGs, that should have less accuracy and less recoil? DMRs will naturallyhave little issue with a dynamic recoil system, too.

The recoil I'm talking about can completely match to the role of spread. Yes movement can affect recoil, it doesn't lead to inconsistent results, it just leads to same result as spread does, and player will suddenly know movement will decrease their gun's accuracy, that is high accessibility. SMGs can have huge recoil to balance the gunplay, although it does not match reality, just like SMG08 or M1919 in BF1. DMRs can be handled like this, if player don't take a break firing bulltes, the recoil gets harder and harder, just like spread. One interesting thing I learned from community is, they barely whining about shitty accuracy of hard kick recoil guns like MG14/17 or SMG08, because they see that is coming.

This could lead to overemphasis on aiming skills, as the CS:GO like players would have it easier to kill others, same with macro and cheatusers.

Why is the former such a bad thing to be afraid of? Are we really afraid of a system that raises the skill ceiling for players trying to manually compensate for recoil on their own, instead of putting on their nerd glasses and looking up reddit or youtube for "optimal burst length of ______ gun, factoring in FSSM and so-and-so". One is intuitive and easy to understand, the other is something most people won't have any idea of existing until it's told to them.

And macro and cheat users are going to macro and cheat regardless of how the gunplay works in any game, I fail to see how any of that is relevant in the discussion of the new mechanics.

This could lead to overemphasis on aiming skills, as the CS:GO like players would have it easier to kill others, same with macro and cheatusers.

Why is the former such a bad thing to be afraid of? Are we really afraid of a system that raises the skill ceiling for players trying to manually compensate for recoil on their own, instead of putting on their nerd glasses and looking up reddit or youtube for "optimal burst length of ______ gun, factoring in FSSM and so-and-so". One is intuitive and easy to understand, the other is something most people won't have any idea of existing until it's told to them.

And macro and cheat users are going to macro and cheat regardless of how the gunplay works in any game, I fail to see how any of that is relevant in the discussion of the new mechanics.

Oh yeah, I am all for a fair shooting mechanic, that is intuitive, authentic and not overly complex. I have stated a lot that I find the BF1 system way worse than the one of BF3 and 4, which I think is just marvellous. I am with you that you should not have to know optimal burst lengths or weapons that get overly penalized for being out of their designated range.
I also think that the CS and R6 system is very good for the 5vs5 small map design. A lot of their appeal stems from the competitive nature of these games. But that is a very specific competitive appeal and translating this into a battlefield game where both maps and playercounts are 10 times bigger, there are vehicles involved and the engagement ranges go beyond 50m. With the massive scope BF has it can never be a competitive shooter and will always be about jumping into match and having fun. What BF always did, was to add a tactical and strategic layer to make up for what you lack in the pure shooting department. BF before offered ways to offset traditional shooting skills, by knowing an extra fact, playing with the minimap and being generally aware what you are doing. Basically actual tactical stuff. If you can even combine these stats you can excel further without being overpowered. Looking back to BF4, playing with my platoon, symthic guys and a couple of "competitive" as well as watching the stupid ESL, I know that there was no player I could not have taken on, and that is true for almost each owner of BF4. I missed that in BF1. I watched Marbleduck a fair bit and when he played BF4 I thought: "Man, he is good, but I could tackle him." Then I watched him play BF1 and that was just gone, there is no way I could have competed with him on this game.

People are too often narrow-minded about shooters, me included, thinking that there is only one type of skill that determines the player's ability and that power lies within his mouse, but that's wrong.

As far as cheaters go let me explain: If you use a norecoil-cheat you will still have to battle spread and hit 5 times. In BFV, supposedly, you will only have to point your gun and hit 5 times. Even with how little spread affected the gunplay it still bought you time. You could also overcome cheaters, that were notoriously careless, by simply playing the minimap more, someting they can not hack. Yep cheaters will be in any game, but you do not have to make it easier for them.

Exactly. It's more intuitive (one of the single most important things in game design) and allows for the player to give more attention to things that aren't gunplay. See, the thing is gunplay is supposed to be more intuitive/reflexive/physical as opposed to a mental/thinking/decision-making mechanic (learning spread, etc), because this lets the player "just do" gunplay things while focusing their intellect and decsion-making processes on tactics and the like.

This is something I feel has been missed too often in discussions like this, where it seems people think everything in a game should be intellect-based, rather than instinct.

Yeah you know I am onboard with this, and I am not totally opposed to the idea of a recoil-only solution. It is jsut a fact though that we had a pretty well working system with a lot of options for fine-tuning and experimenting on a broad level instead of a per-gun approach. Guns get inaccurate the more you shoot them, that is intuitive, no matter how you do it.

But I would say in a game like BF having spread is mandatory for different reasons: Authenticity, Balance and leveling the playing field. You are less accurate while moving, jumping, from the hip, spread can resemble this easily and it is intuitive even f you do not know the numbers. You can also make shotguns and SMGs work according to their role without making them useless by decreasing their damage too much. The shorter the barrel, the less precise a gun is. And as said, the more you make your system dependable on outside sources (mouse, macros, your general ability to control that input device) the more your gaming experience can turn into frustration because you just hit natural boundaries.

I mean you play on console, right? I suppose aim assist will level the playing field a fair bit since a controller is hard to use in a shooter. Do you play shooters on a PC as well? Because that can be really frustrating in games where your own accuracy is everything. That is my biggest complaint with PUBG, Arma and similar games. That the time of engagement can vary so drastically solely depending on the player's ability to control their mouse. Even in BF4 I've seen accuracy ranges for automatic weapons range from 8%-25% and that indeed has a huge impact.

Keep in mind we'll still have bullet velocity, drag, and gravity, and zeroing as factors, so direct comparisons to the hitscan R6, CS, and CoD aren't especially useful, even with no or very little spread.

People are too often narrow-minded about shooters, me included, thinking that there is only one type of skill that determines the player's ability and that power lies within his mouse, but that's wrong.

As far as cheaters go let me explain: If you use a norecoil-cheat you will still have to battle spread and hit 5 times. In BFV, supposedly, you will only have to point your gun and hit 5 times. Even with how little spread affected the gunplay it still bought you time. You could also overcome cheaters, that were notoriously careless, by simply playing the minimap more, someting they can not hack. Yep cheaters will be in any game, but you do not have to make it easier for them.

You're absolutely right on your first statement, which is why BFV overhauling its gunplay mechanics into a recoil based system probably won't be as bad as it sounds. And as BU said, there's still plenty of other things to factor into BF games that other franchises don't. For the second, again it really doesn't matter and shouldn't be relevant to the discussion. I've had people in PUBG kill me 200m+ away with perfectly consecutive headshots from a stock Micro Uzi, cheaters will find ways to circumvent whatever game mechanics there are to inflict maximum damage.

Speaking of PUBG, I'm glad you brought that up because I've been enjoying it in lieu of BF1 for the past year, precisely because there's a massive emphasis on aiming and actually learning how guns works in-game. There's still base spread and spread increase (not unlike BF games), but they're applied well enough not to feel obtrusive unlike BF1. It's not perfect system but definitely one that succeeds miles above BF1's "rock paper scissors" theorycrafting balance and "according to my hitrate calculator, I need to shoot this gun in 6 round bursts for maximum efficiency!"

People are too often narrow-minded about shooters, me included, thinking that there is only one type of skill that determines the player's ability and that power lies within his mouse, but that's wrong.

As far as cheaters go let me explain: If you use a norecoil-cheat you will still have to battle spread and hit 5 times. In BFV, supposedly, you will only have to point your gun and hit 5 times. Even with how little spread affected the gunplay it still bought you time. You could also overcome cheaters, that were notoriously careless, by simply playing the minimap more, someting they can not hack. Yep cheaters will be in any game, but you do not have to make it easier for them.

You're absolutely right on your first statement, which is why BFV overhauling its gunplay mechanics into a recoil based system probably won't be as bad as it sounds. And as BU said, there's still plenty of other things to factor into BF games that other franchises don't. For the second, again it really doesn't matter and shouldn't be relevant to the discussion. I've had people in PUBG kill me 200m+ away with perfectly consecutive headshots from a stock Micro Uzi, cheaters will find ways to circumvent whatever game mechanics there are to inflict maximum damage.

Speaking of PUBG, I'm glad you brought that up because I've been enjoying it in lieu of BF1 for the past year, precisely because there's a massive emphasis on aiming and actually learning how guns works in-game. There's still base spread and spread increase (not unlike BF games), but they're applied well enough not to feel obtrusive unlike BF1. It's not perfect system but definitely one that succeeds miles above BF1's "rock paper scissors" theorycrafting balance and "according to my hitrate calculator, I need to shoot this gun in 6 round bursts for maximum efficiency!"

On the topic of PUBG, I have been playing PUBG for a while too and I feel that BFV is trying to go for similar gun handling mechanics as PUBG, with very little spread, mostly recoil and recoil increasing beyond linear after x amount of shots. Personally I am not a favorite of that system as it ultimately boils down to either full-auto spray or single tapping, with no moving spread penalty. Bursting is not effective at PUBG. Also base spread is very low in PUBG from my experience, almost negligible compared to the recoil that the guns have.

But I am going to reserve my judgment on gun play after footage from EA play is available.
As for the new health/ammo/revive system, I think it is very hard to even judge it just by watching footage, let alone the absence of such. IMO these mechanics affect the flow of gameplay and one must be inside the flow, i.e. playing the game, to know how clunky/immersive they are. It also depends on the implementation, such as how much do you get each time, what is the window of acceptance? It is way too early to comment on the merit of these mechanics before even seeing gameplay footages.

To me, that suggests that AlmightyDaq was right and the following BF Vietnam/ Cold War (being made by DICE LA) will release 12-18 months after BFV. Such that there wouldn't be enough time to fit in a fully-packed season pass between games.

I made this comment before that announcement. But yes, it would seem so. And also no loot crates, if that same tweet is to be believed.

So what is the angle here? Are we moving to a new model where they will simply push to sell you a small-ish game and then toss out a few maps mid life for free, but then convince you to buy a whole new game every 12 months?

It's been a clean 2 years between BF3, BF4, and BF1. Trying to double the output rate while trimming down on total content and game lifespan, all while charging that same AAA price seems risky. By the same token loot crates are a dumpster fire they need to move away from, and the Season Pass system seems to be sagging, so I guess they need to try something new.